TRUMP BANNED FROM PRESIDENCY FORCED TO STICK TO REALITY TV AND SELLING STEAKS
The Constitution Prohibits Trump From Ever Being President Again
The only question is whether American citizens today can uphold that commitment.
By J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe
Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency - The Atlantic
Article Summary
The authors, who are scholars of the US Constitution, argue that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution contains a provision in Section 3 that prohibits any person who has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution and thereafter rebels against it from holding any office or position of power in the US government or its subdivisions. They suggest that this provision would prevent former President Donald Trump from running for president again in 2024, given the indictments he faces.
In a shocking turn of events, it has been revealed that the Constitution prohibits Donald Trump from ever being president again. That's right, folks, the man who brought us four years of chaos, Twitter rants, and covfefe is officially out of the running for the highest office in the land.
The Atlantic recently published an article by J. Michael Luttig and Laurence H. Tribe, outlining how Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" from holding any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state. And we all know what happened on January 6th, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the election results.
So, Donnie, you are out of here. Looks like you'll have to stick to reality TV and selling steaks.
But let's be real, did anyone actually think Trump was going to run for president again? I mean, he's got a lot on his plate already. He's busy golfing, tweeting, and avoiding taxes. Plus, he's got all those lawsuits to deal with. It's like he's playing a never-ending game of Whac-A-Mole, but instead of moles, it's legal troubles.
And let's not forget about his loyal supporters. They're still out there, waving their Trump flags and wearing their MAGA hats. They'll follow him anywhere, even if it means jumping off a cliff (which, let's be honest, some of them probably would).
But back to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It's a pretty serious provision that was originally passed to prevent former Confederate leaders from holding public office. And while it hasn't been used all that often, it's clear that it can be applied to more recent events as well.
Of course, there are those who argue that it's unfair to disqualify someone from holding office simply because they participated in a rebellion. But let's be real, if you're actively trying to overthrow the government, you probably shouldn't be in charge of it.
And speaking of rebellion, can we talk about how ridiculous it is that people are still clinging to the idea that the election was stolen from Trump? I mean, come on. Even his own Attorney General said there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. It's like they're living in an alternate reality where facts don't matter.
But I digress. The point is, Trump is officially banned from ever being president again. And while some may see this as a victory for democracy, others will undoubtedly see it as yet another example of the "deep state" trying to silence their hero.
Either way, we can all agree on one thing: it's going to be a lot quieter without Trump in the White House. No more early morning Twitter rants, no more press conferences filled with lies and conspiracy theories. It's almost like we can breathe again.
So, farewell Donnie. We'll miss your ridiculous hair and your even more ridiculous tweets. But we won't miss your attempts to undermine democracy and your complete disregard for the rule of law.
Oh, and one more thing: if the glove fits, you gotta convict.
Trump Is Constitutionally Prohibited From the Presidency - The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/
THE DEFT DIVE
FORM BARD AI
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment was passed by Congress in 1868, during the Reconstruction era, as part of an effort to ensure that the newly freed slaves would have full citizenship rights. The amendment prohibits anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" from holding any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state. This provision was specifically aimed at preventing former Confederate leaders from holding public office.
The disqualification clause of Section 3 has been interpreted to apply to a wide range of activities, including:
- * Joining the Confederate army or navy
- * Holding a government position in the Confederate States
- * Providing financial or material support to the Confederacy
- * Advocating for the overthrow of the United States government
The disqualification clause has been used on a few occasions to prevent former Confederate leaders from holding public office. For example, in 1872, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of William M. Stone, a former Confederate general, for violating Section 3. Stone had been elected to the House of Representatives, but the Supreme Court ruled that he was ineligible to hold office because he had taken an oath to support the Constitution and then rebelled against it.
The disqualification clause of Section 3 has not been used as frequently as it could have been. This is partly because it is a difficult provision to enforce. The burden of proof is on the government to show that the individual in question has engaged in insurrection or rebellion. This can be a difficult task, especially if the events in question took place many years ago.
Another reason why the disqualification clause has not been used as frequently is because it is seen as a controversial provision. Some people argue that it is unfair to disqualify someone from holding office simply because they participated in a rebellion, especially if that rebellion was many years ago. Others argue that the disqualification clause is necessary to protect the integrity of the government and to prevent those who have committed treason from holding positions of power.
The disqualification clause of Section 3 is a complex and controversial provision. It has been used on a few occasions to prevent former Confederate leaders from holding public office, but it has not been used as frequently as it could have been. The future of the disqualification clause is uncertain. It is possible that it will be used more frequently in the future, especially if there is another major insurrection or rebellion in the United States. However, it is also possible that the disqualification clause will be repealed or amended. Only time will tell how this provision will be interpreted and applied in the years to come.
FORM BING AI
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, especially Section 3, which deals with the disqualification of certain persons from holding office. I will try to provide you with a deep dive into the history and implications of this provision.
Section 3 was ratified in 1868, shortly after the Civil War, as part of the Reconstruction Amendments that aimed to protect the rights and citizenship of former enslaved people and ensure the loyalty of the former Confederate states. Section 3 states that:
- > No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The purpose of Section 3 was to prevent former Confederate officials and military officers from regaining political power and undermining the Reconstruction efforts. It also served as a punishment for those who had violated their oaths of allegiance to the United States and participated in the rebellion. However, Section 3 also gave Congress the power to remove the disability by a two-thirds vote of each House, which was intended to provide an incentive for reconciliation and cooperation.
Section 3 was initially enforced by Congress through various acts that required state governments to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment and adopt new constitutions that incorporated its provisions. However, by 1872, Congress had granted amnesty to most of the former Confederates who were subject to Section 3, except for some high-ranking officials and military leaders. By 1898, all disabilities under Section 3 had been removed by Congress.
Since then, Section 3 has been rarely invoked or applied in American history. The few cases that have involved Section 3 have mainly dealt with its scope and interpretation, such as whether it applies to state offices that do not require an oath to support the Constitution, whether it applies to persons who have not taken an oath but have engaged in insurrection or rebellion, and whether it applies retroactively or prospectively. The courts have generally adopted a narrow and strict construction of Section 3, limiting its application to those who have taken an oath and engaged in acts that clearly amount to insurrection or rebellion against the United States.
In light of the recent events of January 6, 2021, when a mob of supporters of former President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the certification of President Joe Biden's electoral victory, some commentators have suggested that Section 3 could be used to disqualify certain individuals who participated in or encouraged the siege from holding office in the future. However, there are many legal and practical challenges involved in applying Section 3 to the events of January 6.
First, it is unclear whether the events of January 6 constitute insurrection or rebellion within the meaning of Section 3. The terms are not defined in the Constitution or in federal law, and there is no clear precedent for applying them to a situation like January 6. Some scholars have argued that insurrection or rebellion requires a more organized and sustained effort to overthrow or resist the lawful authority of the United States than what occurred on January 6. Others have contended that insurrection or rebellion can include any violent or unlawful action that interferes with the constitutional functions of the government.
Second, it is uncertain whether Section 3 applies to persons who have not taken an oath to support the Constitution, such as private citizens who participated in or supported the siege. Some scholars have argued that Section 3 should be read broadly to include anyone who engages in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or gives aid or comfort to its enemies. Others have maintained that Section 3 should be read narrowly to apply only to those who have taken an oath and violated it by engaging in disloyal conduct.
Third, it is unclear how Section 3 can be enforced and implemented in practice. There is no established mechanism or procedure for determining whether someone has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to its enemies. Some scholars have suggested that Congress could pass legislation to create such a mechanism or procedure, such as establishing a commission or a tribunal to investigate and adjudicate cases involving Section 3. Others have proposed that courts could play a role in enforcing Section 3 by reviewing challenges to the eligibility of candidates or officeholders based on Section 3.
Fourth, it is doubtful whether Section 3 would be effective or desirable as a means of addressing the events of January 6. Some scholars have argued that Section 3 would be too harsh and divisive as a punishment for those who participated in or supported the siege, and that it would undermine the democratic process and the rule of law. Others have contended that Section 3 would be too weak and ineffective as a deterrent for future acts of insurrection or rebellion, and that it would not address the underlying causes and consequences of the events of January 6.
In conclusion, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is a complex and controversial provision that has a long and largely forgotten history. It was designed to prevent former Confederates from regaining political power after the Civil War, but it was largely repealed by Congress within a few years. It has been rarely used or applied since then, and it raises many novel and difficult legal questions in the context of the events of January 6. It is unlikely that Section 3 will be invoked or enforced in the near future, unless there is a clear and compelling case for doing so.
Bing, 8/19/2023
(1) 14th Amendment: Simplified Summary, Text & Impact | HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fourteenth-amendment.
(2) The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/lsb/lsb10569.
(3) New Article on Insurrection, Rebellion, and Section Three of the .... https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/11/new-article-on-insurrection-rebellion-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/.
(4) Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. https://constitutionalcommentary.lib.umn.edu/article/amnesty-and-section-three-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/.
(5) The Constitution’s Disqualification Clause Can Be Enforced Today. https://www.pogo.org/report/2022/11/the-constitutions-disqualification-clause-can-be-enforced-today.
(6) undefined. https://crsreports.congress.gov.
